Would the US want a French Quebec though? They've just managed to get one colonial power of their backs after all.
Interesting idea...
Maybe if France and Spain had kept on fighting after the British had been defeated in America in order to recover the territories they lost in 1763... But the problem is that the thirteen colonnies might want to make a separate peace in that scenario, and Spain and France would have been forced to continue alone, which reduce the chances of their victory.
Another small difficulty I see is that I believe France valued more an acre of land in a tiny Caribean island, full of rich sugar plantations, than a hundred acres of land in Canada. But this can easily be solved: either France wins so clearly that she's able to get back EVERYTHING she had in 1763, or she has a different set of priorities.
I don't think that France could get it all back,
and IIRC Spain didn't lose anything,
but I could imagine France wanting all of Canada minus the maritimes (given to the US as bribery?).
But woulnd't that go against the raison d'etre for the revolution? Many of the Americans did still consider themselves British, they were just throwing off the oppressive monarchy. Culturally they would identify themselves with their (mostly literally) motherland, even if politically they allied with the French and Spaniards.Good point, but it depends upon the context. For example, if ITTL France and Spain are close-ish allies of the US, then the ARW may be viewed as a struggle against the British instead of a struggle against colonialism and imperialism.
Well, at least nothing significant. She lost Florida, but gained the territory west of Misissippi from France. And she had to give back Colonia del Sacramento to Portugal, which she had captured during the war.
It could be. If france/Spain the US win in all the theatres (India, the Americas, West Africa, etc.), the UK might have to accept the return of Quebec and one or two Caribean islands (let's say, Dominica and Granada), in exchange for conserving what she had obteined elsewhere in the previous war. But it would have to be a very clear victory for the Spanish/French/American alliance.
But woulnd't that go against the raison d'etre for the revolution? Many of the Americans did still consider themselves British, they were just throwing off the oppressive monarchy. Culturally they would identify themselves with their (mostly literally) motherland, even if politically they allied with the French and Spaniards.Well, if the French are seen as more of a benificial monarchy instead of an oppressive one (perhaps ITTL a French revolution causes the French monarchy to constitutionalize), than maybe the Americans would tolerate them in Canada?
The other point about the value France placed on Quebec is valid - there was little desire for the French to reclaim Quebec, apart from maybe wiping it in Britain's eye. Economically it was a drain of resources with little return (furs and timber not being as lucrative as sugar and molasses). Strategically it was dificult to defend, especially if the Maritimes and Newfoundland remained British or if they became a part of the US (and the Amercians might find themselves surpressing their own revolutionaries in that event). And culturally the Quebecois were back-ward, provinical farmers that wouldn't add to the gloire d'empire.
What if, say, Quebec became a dumping ground for prisoners and possibly rovolutionaries (if the 'constitutional monarchy revolution' scenario I posted above occured). Then the area would have a larger and growing population, which would house industry when the Industrial Revolution gets off the ground a few years later.
But woulnd't that go against the raison d'etre for the revolution? Many of the Americans did still consider themselves British, they were just throwing off the oppressive monarchy. Culturally they would identify themselves with their (mostly literally) motherland, even if politically they allied with the French and Spaniards.
The other point about the value France placed on Quebec is valid - there was little desire for the French to reclaim Quebec, apart from maybe wiping it in Britain's eye. Economically it was a drain of resources with little return (furs and timber not being as lucrative as sugar and molasses). Strategically it was dificult to defend, especially if the Maritimes and Newfoundland remained British or if they became a part of the US (and the Amercians might find themselves surpressing their own revolutionaries in that event). And culturally the Quebecois were back-ward, provinical farmers that wouldn't add to the gloire d'empire.
Personally I think that would be stretching Republican fervor to far to be realistic, but stranger things have happened in historyWell, if the French are seen as more of a benificial monarchy instead of an oppressive one (perhaps ITTL a French revolution causes the French monarchy to constitutionalize), than maybe the Americans would tolerate them in Canada?
France had plenty of nearer, existing colonies to dump prisoners into instead of the politcal and strategic difficulties of needing to retake marginal land. Britain could do it with Australia because it wasn't held by anyone else (Aboriginals aside, but they were unable to oppose the Europeans).What if, say, Quebec became a dumping ground for prisoners and possibly rovolutionaries (if the 'constitutional monarchy revolution' scenario I posted above occured). Then the area would have a larger and growing population, which would house industry when the Industrial Revolution gets off the ground a few years later.